By Aleksander Boyd

"And I say this for, in the 30 months of [my] government, as a function of the existence of the Sao Paulo Forum, colleague Marco Aurelio has performed an extraordinary function in consolidating what we started in 1990, when we were few, discredited and talked too much. In this sense, in January 2003, we proposed to our colleague President Chavez, the creation of the "Group of Friends" in order to find a peaceful solution that, thank god, materialised in Venezuela. And it was possible through a political action of colleagues. It was not a political action of one State with other State, or of one president with another president. It should be borne in mind that Chavez participated in one of the meetings we had in Havana. And thanks to that relationship it was possible to seal, with many political differences, the consolidation of what ocurred in Venezuela with the referendum that reaffirmed Chavez as President of Venezuela."

"... what could have happened in Ecuador with the ousting of Lucio Gutierrez? Although the president has left, truth is the democratic process is more consolidated than ten years ago. And what would be of Bolivia, with the recent ousting of Carlos Mesa, without the stronger democratic conscience of our continent among all the forces that compose that country? The [electoral] victory of Tabaré in Uruguay: how many years awaiting, how many defeats, as much as those of mine. That is, the patience of waiting, of constructing, of adding, of establishing policies that could consolidate, definitely, not only a victory, but to rid people of the fear felt when imagining that the left could win an election. And what about Argentina? At a moment where nobody wanted to be president, Duhalde took over and achieved, in two years, to not only start to recoup the economy of Argentina, but managed to choose a successor with the personality of president Kirchner. The Chileans, after so much hardship, of a period that people don't even want to remember, are about ready, for the fourth consecutive time, to elect a president, I hope a female president, that is a woman president of that country. That's not small, but huge feat."

Speech of president of the Republic, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, in the political act celebrating the 15 years of the Sao Paulo Forum. Sao Paulo, 02 July 2005 [1]

London 20.01.06 | Before continuing with the round of questions posed to Olavo de Carvalho, I would like to point out the obvious conflict of interests that surrounds the relationship of Brazil's President Lula and the Sao Paulo Forum (FdSP). Lula is the founder of the FdSP and, purportedly until very recently, its president. According to WHOIS, the FdSP site is hosted in Brazil in servers associated with the domain www.lula.org.br and it was registered by the Worker's Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores PT). Both domains, lula.org.br and forosaopaulo.org, were registered by Jose Genoino Neto, president of the PT, whom this site refers to as a terrorist, amongst other leading PT members and Brazilian officials.

As can be noted above Lula seems to have a blurred understanding of how diplomatic affairs between sovereign States ought to be conducted. When he refers to the agreement he reached with his Venezuelan colleague towards the formation of the "Group of Friends," it is evident that Lula has a wanton disregard for the Rule of Law, let alone for international agreements and the Inter American Democratic Charter. For how can the dealings of an unaccountable organization that gathers Latin America's communist autocrats, narcoterrorists and radical groups impose its agenda over democratic countries? Here are the facts.

Are but a few of the active groups of the FdSP [3]. Before the aforesaid gets dismissed as mere conjectures notice the warm relationships that Castro, Lula, Chavez, Kirchner and Morales have with each other. Brazilian magazine Veja Online reported on November 2005 that Lula had received a $3 million donation from Fidel Castro for his presidential campaign. What's more, how can a FARC letter praising comrades Chavez, Fidel and Kirchner, be interpreted? Did the capture of Venezuelan-nationalised FARC chief Rodrigo Granda in the streets of Caracas and subsequent diplomatic spat with the country's second largest commercial partner, not prove how deeply in bed Chavez is with the Colombian narcoterrorists? Then add the almost certain electoral victories of Ollanta Humala in Peru, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Lopez Obrador in Mexico, Rafael Correa in Ecuador. Further factor in the scheduled referenda processes aiming at establishing constitutional assemblies in Bolivia and Ecuador, which will dissolve the institutional framework, as was the case in Venezuela on 22 December 2000. This exercise shall give a clear picture of what the FdSP is up to and where the region is heading.

Much ink has been dispensed of late about the US blocking war weaponry sales to Venezuela, by Spain. Spanish premier Rodriguez Zapatero appears steadfast in his commitment to save face with the socialist shipyard unions of Northern Spain where the frigates for Chavez are to be built. Furthermore Spain is not only violating property rights by transferring American technology to a rogue regime, it has clearly infringed and disregarded European regulations, as I noted on April last year. Then there is the nuclear issue. Venezuela made overtures to Argentina for the purchase of a nuclear reactor last year. Thomas Joscelyn from the Daily Standard reported:

ON SEPTEMBER 24 [2005] the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution that, in part, called on Iran "to observe fully its commitments and to return to the negotiating process that has made good progress in the last two years." The resolution is just the latest chapter in the ongoing dispute over Iran's nuclear programs, but a look at the votes cast by the IAEA's members reveals a great deal about the international landscape: Of the IAEA's 35 board members, 22 voted in favor of the resolution, 12 abstained (including Russia, which is heavily invested in Iran's nuclear programs), and one nation voted against the resolution. That lone "no" vote was cast by Hugo Chávez's Venezuela, which has increasingly become Iran's willing and vocal ally in the western hemisphere."

The most worrying aspect of it all is the dismissiveness, of policy makers internationally, and the lack of due attention to these developments. Contrary to what some suggest, as the FdSP being a pen pal club, heads of regionally powerful States are abusing democratic tools and institutions to achieve highly suspect goals, help each other out by misusing public funds and, worse still, undermine democracy and stability, compromising future generations. Free from accountability mechanisms, once in office, this bunch are succeeding in perpetuating themselves in power. It is irresponsible in the extreme to infer that the region took a turn to the moderate left, for these are no mere moderates or liberals but terrorists and fanatics that have, for many years, planned to seize power democratically only to revert to authoritarianism.

To conclude another remark from President Lula's speech [1]:

"I want to tell you something: the day when a great number of heads of State will participate in meetings, here, of the Sao Paulo Forum is not far. Things are advancing that way. We have learned that organized society is an expectional instrument and we also learned that democratic processes can guarantee that the people can fulfill these dreams of ours."